>>"A bit later, a representative from Sparkfun stepped up to speak about FCC compliance. He explained to us what he called the "good news": its actually only about 1000 bucks to get tested (ignoring your time and effort to get it >>done) if you are an "unintentional radiator" (that is you don't use wireless). If you do, I may misremember but its 10k USD. And by the way, kits, partial products, etc are not exempt so pay up! Also, amazingly enough if you >>make 5+ items for your personal use, pay up. But 1-4 is fine. Of course this is only for the USA. There's a similar but different regulatory body in every other country."

>Can you explain what is being regulated here? I'm confused.

The FCC tests regulate how much electromagnetic energy is (in the 1000 buck case) being unintentionally emitted over certain frequencies, in an effort to assure these unintentional emissions do not interfere with communications signals. These are usually split into "radiated" and "conducted" (conducted applies to something hooked to line voltages or power outlets. It would not apply to something powered by batteries) The only reason I mention the two general types of radiation is that the price for getting the testing done will depend on whether you have something plugged into an outlet or not.

"A bit later, a representative from Sparkfun stepped up to speak about FCC compliance. He explained to us what he called the "good news": its actually only about 1000 bucks to get tested (ignoring your time and effort to get it done) if you are an "unintentional radiator" (that is you don't use wireless). If you do, I may misremember but its 10k USD. And by the way, kits, partial products, etc are not exempt so pay up! Also, amazingly enough if you make 5+ items for your personal use, pay up. But 1-4 is fine. Of course this is only for the USA. There's a similar but different regulatory body in every other country."

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, General Oya <generaloya@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went to BUGGS community lab this saturday here in Baltimore and was
> chatting with Tom about this technology. He and I both have been thinking
> about the use of this on bone and possibly ivory.
> I really would like to forward an initiative = Faux' Real to see if we can
> harness and mass produce ivory and endangered furs to destroy the lucrative
> trade in poaching that continues at an accelerated pace during these trying
> global economic times.

[snip]

Especially good if you could clone out of the wild. That way, there's
little or no basis for distinguishing between "fake" and "real"
because they'd both be about as real as a DNA test could determine.

However, from speaking very recently to someone about to enter a
bioengineering PhD program specializing in tissue growth, I'm forced
to wonder if the state of the art is going to be good enough any time
soon, to grow animal hides at scale -- or even at all.

I went to BUGGS community lab this saturday here in Baltimore and was chatting with Tom about this technology. He and I both have been thinking about the use of this on bone and possibly ivory.I really would like to forward an initiative = Faux' Real to see if we can harness and mass produce ivory and endangered furs to destroy the lucrative trade in poaching that continues at an accelerated pace during these trying global economic times. I also envision synbio experiments using various custom leather epidermal/connective tissue biomaterials. It would be cool to get together some leather experts and biomaterial engineers to play with the levels of elastin, collagen, keratin in say hippo, croc, shark, rhino cells to find a means of creating bulletproof leathers or something similar. Sound possible to anyone, perhaps a link towards a bone oriented bioprinter or something?Ryan

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

"A bit later, a representative from Sparkfun stepped up to speak about FCC compliance. He explained to us what he called the "good news": its actually only about 1000 bucks to get tested (ignoring your time and effort to get it done) if you are an "unintentional radiator" (that is you don't use wireless). If you do, I may misremember but its 10k USD. And by the way, kits, partial products, etc are not exempt so pay up! Also, amazingly enough if you make 5+ items for your personal use, pay up. But 1-4 is fine. Of course this is only for the USA. There's a similar but different regulatory body in every other country."

Can you explain what is being regulated here? I'm confused.

Thanks,Ryan

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The Likert scale for the "How often do you use below mentioned communication methods" questions seems a bit screwy. For example, you don't have an option matching anything less frequent than once a month, which is especially relevant for the "Conferences and other bigger (international) events" part of the question. Those of us who actually do attend these events probably don't attend more DIYbio related ones than 2-3 a year.

Your software to save incomplete surveys has a bug! It broke because my name contains an apostrophe, so I couldn't get it to reload my almost-finished survey.

First of all my apologies for delaying this survey for some time. Nevertheless, here it is.

We (P2P researchers) are inviting you to participate on a survey on individuals and communities doing DIYbio: http://surveys.peerproduction.net/ls/index.php?sid=88161The survey contains 29 questions, and typically it takes less than 10 minutes to complete. The survey is intended to give insights about DIYbio communities, and we hope that this will help in motivating you to take the time to participate!

The survey is a part of initiative for open source research on peer production (supported by the Peer to Peer Foundation, more info at http://surveys.peerproduction.net/). All of the (anonymised, of course!) data will be openly available on the survey site. The questions have been prepared by Jarkko Moilanen with the help of DIYbio community and the results with their analysis will be published during 2012.

For further information and questions (or if you want to help with the survey or with peer to peer research more generally), contact jarkko { at } peerproduction.net

"I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them
is different. I don't care whether society is bettered by the
product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is
better serviced by its being so."

And why do you care about that? Only because it means that you
yourself will be "better serviced"? (Could we please say "better
served"?) Or because everybody who uses the product, directly or
indirectly, is better served? And if it's the latter, well, why do you
care about that? Is it axiomatic that it's better that customers
everywhere be better served, even if it makes society worse in some
way? Or is it because you believe that a product being open nets out
to a better society by some measure? If that's the reason, then you're
back at politics -- which is where you end up in any discussion of
property rights (intellectual or otherwise) because property rights
are inevitably defined by a political process.

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeople@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [tt] [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW
> To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com> Cc: tt@postbiota.org>
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/29/2012 03:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some
>>
>>
>> We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its software
>> doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
>
>
> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW>
> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and here,
> is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all files be
> distributed in open-source formats, etc.
>
> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation is
> "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount of
> traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one specific
> company for failing to open-source every part which they sell. And, last I
> checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they said it had
> "open-source components."
>
>
>> of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less
>> lofty reasons:
>>
>> - We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
>> equipment
>> - We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
>> equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
>
>
>> These are political opinions. They argue that people should be free to use
>> the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturers would disagree and
>> claim that they are simply acting in everyone's best economic interests
>
>
> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a schematic to
> aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get one for my car. I
> don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in that... But, to be
> clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-shedding all day: I don't
> care whether society is bettered by the product being open or not, I care
> whether or not the customer is better serviced by its being so.
>
>
>
>> And some consumers will make purchasing decisions that are driven by their
>> own political decisions. It would be economically irrational of them to
>> privilege a company's interests above their own.
>
>
> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not kid
> ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation is that a
> company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irrational to
> put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
>
>
>>
>> If people want to call their cool VC-funded proprietary hardware and
>> software "Open Source" then the problem is not the people telling them that
>> they are wrong.
>
>
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this list,
> for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of late.
> Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company should be
> tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product with a closed
> part and an open part. That anything but 100% is not enough.
>
>
>>
>> I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democratising access to
>> hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefine "Open Source".
>
>
> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," to
> being "open and shared using x..."
>
> Chris
>
> ---
> Chris Church
> Dynamic Perception, LLC
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/> 1 512 203 0507
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

Wow man!!! My kingdom for a video. Is this cartridge moving or the platform moving or both? You guys rock!!!! My other quick question is at some point your going to have to make a well with a submerged platform that moves in the z direction. Have you given any thought as to how you will accomplish this? What is the "dpi" of this current setup?

-Tim

P.S.

I wish there was some easier way to work with the print cartridge. Why is working with a print cartridge so very complex?!!!

The grey rectangle on top is one of the linear actuators we scavenged out of the CD drives. It's got a little stepper motor with a worm gear, moving the CD read head back and forth. The inkjet cartridge is mounted on the read head. We had to cut out some of the grey frame to allow the cartridge to move the full distance (only 2 inch or so - the radius of a CD).

There's another one of these linear actuators on the bottom, at a 90 degree angle. The printing platform (in this case, a post-it note) sits on top of the read head there. Only the read heads and what's attached to them are moving: the bottom head is moving front to back with the post-it, the top head is moving left to right with the print head.

We'll have some better pics for you guys later - hoping to put together an Instructable on this soon.

Its like drugs to me to hear about this project. I appreciate your continued assistance in helping me understand more about your project. In the XY configuration, where was the inkjet cartridge, was it attached in such a way that was independent of the printer? I can't explain why I want to do this, but I just do :> I will keep asking questions until you won't let me anymore or they kick me off the list :>

Heh - the food coloring (and the arabinose) was just with an old inkjet printer we rescued from the sidewalk. Cut off the top of the cartridge, rinse out thoroughly, fill with water + food coloring, print test page.

For our second generation bioprinter, we built an XY-platform from the read head mechanism from two old CD drives (need to search around for the type that uses a stepper motor), driven by an Arduino. This part was entirely inspired by Hackteria's work along these lines:

Wow, this is the most real info on bio printing I have ever come across thanks! I have a couple more quick questions for you. When you used the food coloring did you just print it onto paper? What are you using for x-y positioning of the printer head? Are you printing to a well or what are you actually printing on? Somehow you ended up with something in a petri dish but I am confused how you got it in there. Can you please elaborate? I am quite excited by your progress.

-Tim

P.S.

The main issue as I understand it is positioning. It sounds like your using cd motors of some kind to solve this issue. Can you elaborate on how your solving this issue? What is the printing resolution needed for diybio cell printing in your opinion? Is 96 dpi too much or not enough etc...? Makerbot appears to have solved much of the issues your probably facing, have you looked at adapting that platform to bio printing just curious?

I have been very interested in doing bio printing. I tried to get an old hp deskjet printer and make it print a jello like substance but couldn't even do that.

Have you tried just printing with food coloring in water? That is the first thing we did, and that worked fine. One problem you may be having with a gel is that the inkjet head expects a fluid of a certain viscosity. Plus as the thermal inkjet vaporizes some of the ink, some gelatin may burn and eventually clog the print head.

The second thing we tried, after food coloring, was to print with arabinose in water onto filter paper. Then we put the filter paper onto a lawn of E. coli with the pGLO plasmid containing GFP under an arabinose inducible promoter, so wherever we had printed arabinose, we saw the GFP light up:

We clearly got a lot of diffusion of the arabinose, but you can still make out the BioCurious logo lighting up in GFP.

Cells suspended in liquid should be feasible using an inkjet, but if you really want to print with cells embedded in a gel, you'll probably want to move to a syringe pump system. We're currently looking at mounting a DIY syringe pump (probably driven by another linear actuator from a CD drive) on our BioPrinter.

I am completely frustrated with how to do this. Can anyone give me some real help to figure out how to do this for a diybio person? I am trying to think of what would be a good approach to developing the diybio bio printer. My idea was that I would start with trying to print a jello like gel with different colors in the wells to "test" that it is working. After I complete that task I would then move on to perhaps printing some plant cells or something. I would then like to print cells that are not dangerous to work with like human cells. I am curious are bone cells considered safe? What cells are appropriate for bio printing that would be safe? I keep looking at the makerbot and thinking in my mind, can't this be adapted to bio printing? The only thing I see missing is that the platform needs to move up and down that is being printed on. Isn't that all that is missing? I guess the resolution may not be high enough either. Anyway, I would love to get a simple working bio printer up and working, help me ob1, YOUR MY ONLY HOPE! :>

-Tim

P.S.

I turn cell phones into robots. I am very familiar with arduinos, laser printing, serial communication. You can see my latest robot here:

You can print in titanium using Direct Metal Laser Sintering. You can pretty much print with any material you can turn into a powder or resin. A friend of mine (papers below) even used a NaCl mixture to 3D print tissue scaffolding.

Computer-aided tissue engineering: benefiting from the control over scaffold micro-architecture.

Computer-aided tissue engineering of a human vertebral body.

I've never heard anyone on here discussing printable hip replacements... it sounds like a bad idea anyway, seeing as how poor 3D printer plastics fair in strength. Most joint replacements are made of titanium, etc... Who put that in there?

It also has really old info scattered throughout, and doesn't mention anything of the years of FBI interaction we've had

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The grey rectangle on top is one of the linear actuators we scavenged out of the CD drives. It's got a little stepper motor with a worm gear, moving the CD read head back and forth. The inkjet cartridge is mounted on the read head. We had to cut out some of the grey frame to allow the cartridge to move the full distance (only 2 inch or so - the radius of a CD).

There's another one of these linear actuators on the bottom, at a 90 degree angle. The printing platform (in this case, a post-it note) sits on top of the read head there. Only the read heads and what's attached to them are moving: the bottom head is moving front to back with the post-it, the top head is moving left to right with the print head.

We'll have some better pics for you guys later - hoping to put together an Instructable on this soon.

Its like drugs to me to hear about this project. I appreciate your continued assistance in helping me understand more about your project. In the XY configuration, where was the inkjet cartridge, was it attached in such a way that was independent of the printer? I can't explain why I want to do this, but I just do :> I will keep asking questions until you won't let me anymore or they kick me off the list :>

Heh - the food coloring (and the arabinose) was just with an old inkjet printer we rescued from the sidewalk. Cut off the top of the cartridge, rinse out thoroughly, fill with water + food coloring, print test page.

For our second generation bioprinter, we built an XY-platform from the read head mechanism from two old CD drives (need to search around for the type that uses a stepper motor), driven by an Arduino. This part was entirely inspired by Hackteria's work along these lines:

Wow, this is the most real info on bio printing I have ever come across thanks! I have a couple more quick questions for you. When you used the food coloring did you just print it onto paper? What are you using for x-y positioning of the printer head? Are you printing to a well or what are you actually printing on? Somehow you ended up with something in a petri dish but I am confused how you got it in there. Can you please elaborate? I am quite excited by your progress.

-Tim

P.S.

The main issue as I understand it is positioning. It sounds like your using cd motors of some kind to solve this issue. Can you elaborate on how your solving this issue? What is the printing resolution needed for diybio cell printing in your opinion? Is 96 dpi too much or not enough etc...? Makerbot appears to have solved much of the issues your probably facing, have you looked at adapting that platform to bio printing just curious?

I have been very interested in doing bio printing. I tried to get an old hp deskjet printer and make it print a jello like substance but couldn't even do that.

Have you tried just printing with food coloring in water? That is the first thing we did, and that worked fine. One problem you may be having with a gel is that the inkjet head expects a fluid of a certain viscosity. Plus as the thermal inkjet vaporizes some of the ink, some gelatin may burn and eventually clog the print head.

The second thing we tried, after food coloring, was to print with arabinose in water onto filter paper. Then we put the filter paper onto a lawn of E. coli with the pGLO plasmid containing GFP under an arabinose inducible promoter, so wherever we had printed arabinose, we saw the GFP light up:

We clearly got a lot of diffusion of the arabinose, but you can still make out the BioCurious logo lighting up in GFP.

Cells suspended in liquid should be feasible using an inkjet, but if you really want to print with cells embedded in a gel, you'll probably want to move to a syringe pump system. We're currently looking at mounting a DIY syringe pump (probably driven by another linear actuator from a CD drive) on our BioPrinter.

I am completely frustrated with how to do this. Can anyone give me some real help to figure out how to do this for a diybio person? I am trying to think of what would be a good approach to developing the diybio bio printer. My idea was that I would start with trying to print a jello like gel with different colors in the wells to "test" that it is working. After I complete that task I would then move on to perhaps printing some plant cells or something. I would then like to print cells that are not dangerous to work with like human cells. I am curious are bone cells considered safe? What cells are appropriate for bio printing that would be safe? I keep looking at the makerbot and thinking in my mind, can't this be adapted to bio printing? The only thing I see missing is that the platform needs to move up and down that is being printed on. Isn't that all that is missing? I guess the resolution may not be high enough either. Anyway, I would love to get a simple working bio printer up and working, help me ob1, YOUR MY ONLY HOPE! :>

-Tim

P.S.

I turn cell phones into robots. I am very familiar with arduinos, laser printing, serial communication. You can see my latest robot here:

You can print in titanium using Direct Metal Laser Sintering. You can pretty much print with any material you can turn into a powder or resin. A friend of mine (papers below) even used a NaCl mixture to 3D print tissue scaffolding.

Computer-aided tissue engineering: benefiting from the control over scaffold micro-architecture.

Computer-aided tissue engineering of a human vertebral body.

I've never heard anyone on here discussing printable hip replacements... it sounds like a bad idea anyway, seeing as how poor 3D printer plastics fair in strength. Most joint replacements are made of titanium, etc... Who put that in there?

It also has really old info scattered throughout, and doesn't mention anything of the years of FBI interaction we've had

How far down the rabbit hole do the hair-splitting RMS folks go, especially with OSHW, since the processers and gold mines and trains and airplanes all part of those manufacturing processes are not open at all. Even if the airplane tire was open, along with airplanes, would that democratize transportation? In 50 or 100 years maybe. Oh, and the stepper motors and keyboards and mice and......

Should all this knowledge be free and available? Have people thought how development is incentivized in such an economy? Can an economy even exist in that world?

Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on the DFSG.

In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain proprietary components.

The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.

I was responding to the particular post.

But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well known problem for access and use of digital materials.

The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation is "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.

They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their customers and proponents.

Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.

And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they said it had "open-source components."

Which is a change, and a disappointing one.

I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in that... But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better serviced by its being so.

That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.

Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.

And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not kid ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?

I'm a customer.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of late. Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product with a closed part and an open part.

When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will be affected if they retreat from Open Source.

That anything but 100% is not enough.

It isn't enough to call it Open Source.

Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," to being "open and shared using x..."

I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say, that is not what I was responding to.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Safecast data largely ratified the coarser-grained government readings. If the Japanese government lacked a data collection network as fine-grained, at least part of the "blame" might be attributed to ... a sense of proportion. After all, it took a seismic event that killed 20,000 people in one day to cause a nuclear pollution event that might take the lives of only about 200 people over a period of decades. In the meantime, much of the panic here was related to absurdly conservative Japanese radiation standards. In Scandinavia, which is not exactly a public-health-policy hell-hole, meat is considered safe for sale at 5,000 Bq/kg. In Japan, the standard is 500 Bq/kg. Some Shizuoka tea was pulled from distribution networks because of a radiation reading that would have left it quite acceptable for sale in the U.S. -- even *without* considering the dilution that tea ordinarily undergoes to become a beverage.

Safecast has since expanded into conventional air-quality monitoring. Perhaps they'll help the Japanese understand how much more fossil fuel is being burned now, with almost all the nukes still off, and renewables still very far from closing the gap. Unfortunately, CO2 doesn't show up as an air-quality pollutant at all. It just kills people through climate change effects that, in the longer run, will be be much more disastrous for people in developing countries.

Custom manufacturing of parts, taken to a certain level, lends itself to custom manufacturing of some parts that are very exotic indeed. For example, the components of nuclear weapons. DIYbio could lend itself to biological WMD.

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Andrew Stone <stone@toastedcircuits.com> > Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Discuss] The institutionalization of OSHW > To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List > <discuss@lists.oshwa.org> > > > I hear your frustration Phillip. Its doubly hard to hear criticism from > people who are not wrestling with the problems you are dealing with. Like I > said in my OP I certainly respect pragmatic decisions and appreciate all > OSHW, even fragments! As I implied in my OP, if closing a small subset > eliminates 99% of the knockoffs but only 1% of the enhancers then maybe it > is a reasonable tradeoff. > > But what really needs to be said about OSHW is that prior discussions were > along the lines of practicum -- that is "I want to open everything but the > tools do not allow me. When they do I will..." > > At the summit it seemed we were hearing "its bad for business to open > everything". > > This transformation in motivation needed to be addressed I think. > > > "Someone in this room will build a billion dollar business" was picked up > and repeated several times by other speakers as if that was what we were all > planning and striving for... > > Was anyone considering the immense social and environmental impact OSHW has > already had by influencing the decision of an entire country to stop using > nuclear power? And by accurately charting the environmental effects of > industrial disasters? Or did those talks get ignored in the scramble stake > a claim in the OSHW gold rush? :-) > > Yes Catarina, Michael, I hope people do think about it and vote with their > pocketbooks... but I think you may want to stop a moment and consider why > many votes aren't weighted by net worth. > > And the rest of us may want to seriously consider releasing our > contributions with strong share-alike requirements... > > Cheers! > Andrew > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:58 PM, phillip torrone <pt@oreilly.com> wrote: >> >> i usually try to say companies "making and selling open source hardware" >> when i write about companies folks should support if they like to see more >> oshw in the world. i don't think it's ever going to be possible to be a 100% >> open source hardware company and i'm also not sure 100% open source hardware >> can exist for some people too. >> >> what we have is a desire to share and be open, more is happening, it's >> good :) >> >> On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:51 PM, Michael James >> <michael@opensourcehardwarejunkies.com> wrote: >> >> > I am a bit confused when people say Open Source Hardware Company. >> > >> > Any company can sell OSHW. The OSHW designation applies to devices not >> > business entities. >> > >> > Radio Shack carries Open Source Hardware - good for them I say and for >> > OSHW. >> > >> > If a company wants to sell open and close source - power to them. If >> > their customer base feels alienated they can (and will) vote with their >> > wallets. >> > >> > -Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Catarina Mota >> > <catarina@openmaterials.org> wrote: >> > I'm seriously sleep deprived, so take this with a grain of salt :) >> > >> > Perhaps we should stop using the expression "OSHW company." Otherwise, >> > we'll end up having to determine what percentage of a business's products >> > must be OHSW for that company to be considered open source. We don't need a >> > company certification process, not right now I think. >> > >> > While I agree that some people behaved shamefully last week, let's keep >> > in mind that they're a handful of individuals. Yesterday we stuffed almost >> > 500 people in a warehouse to discuss controversial issues and everyone (as >> > far as know) behaved beautifully. So much so that the Eyebeam team >> > complimented us on being unusually friendly, respectful and upbeat. Many >> > sponsors, speakers and attendees showed up early (some of them were 2 days >> > early) and, instead of taking a seat, rolled up their sleeves and started >> > deploying chairs and picking up trash - yup, we put CEOs on trash duty :) >> > The outpour of love and support in our inbox and twitter stream today has >> > been one of the most moving things I've experienced. So while we can't >> > condone rudeness and disrespect, we should also celebrate the majority that >> > is so kind and supportive. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM, phillip torrone <pt@oreilly.com> >> > wrote: >> > 2 weeks ago i got the usual once-a-month "purity" email from some random >> > person saying "you're not open source because you use quickbooks, or >> > windows, or EAGLE" etc.. but now this week adafruit along with sparkfun is >> > back to being a "good example of an open source hardware" company. >> > >> > i read your post and you say "Ok fine, I understand the need to >> > discourage knock-offs. But if you do this you are NOT 100% Open Source >> > Hardware." - >> > >> > ok, but really, who is or isn't open source enough this week? >> > >> > is sparkfun 100%, is adafruit 100%, what about EMSL? they have a kit >> > that's not OSHW, so does everyone else who i consider an oshw company. are >> > we pure enough? >> > >> > our company statement, actually, limor's is "we're going to keep >> > shipping OSHW while everyone argues about open source hardware". we're going >> > to keep doing open source, we'll show that's an amazing cause and an amazing >> > business, smart people will want to join us. >> > >> > last week the most vocal voices in the open source 3d printing community >> > didn't inspire anyone to want to join their cause, in fact a 3d printer >> > maker told me "wow, glad we never did (or will do open source). that's the >> > worst thing i think, people steering clear of open source because of a >> > "damned if you do, damned if you don't? >> > >> > i really don't know what's next, but i'm thinking about. for now, i'm >> > really excited about the OSHWA, because they're a group of people that has >> > the mission to celebrate OSHW companies, i'd like to know i can work hard >> > and someone *else* is going to say "these folks are doing OSHW, support >> > them". >> > >> > i'm going to do my best to get them members and help them celebrate >> > oshw. >> > >> > join in :) >> > >> > cheers, >> > pt >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Stone <stone@toastedcircuits.com> >> > wrote: >> > As I listened to the OSHW summit speakers, I felt a pretty disturbing >> > trend towards closing aspects of some products, and "yes-sirring" both real >> > and "fake" regulatory bodies (as opposed to reluctantly complying) by the >> > well-regarded members of our community. And then of course there were lots >> > of great presentations of cool stuff that completely disregarded all that. >> > > >> > > Looks like some of us are growing up :-(. Did you feel that way? >> > > >> > > My full blog posting: >> > > http://effluviaofascatteredmind.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-institutionalization-of-oshw.html >> > > >> > > Cheers! >> > > Andrew >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > discuss mailing list >> > > discuss@lists.oshwa.org >> > > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > discuss mailing list >> > discuss@lists.oshwa.org >> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > discuss mailing list >> > discuss@lists.oshwa.org >> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > discuss mailing list >> > discuss@lists.oshwa.org >> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss@lists.oshwa.org >> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@lists.oshwa.org > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss > > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "DIYbio" group. > To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.